Civvies on Fed ships. Why?

[Mr Bean]

I see I come up with a rare brillant idea and everyone ignores it, let me restate it so everyone gets the brillance
First what was said about Survial Instinct was bread out by one of the posters

Or, it could simply be that just about every survival instinct has been bred or conditioned out of the Federationists. They do seem to have no idea that the galaxy can be a dangerous place and that life-threatening situations are the norm, not the exception.

Flip that around, What if its a Safty Measure?

By that I mean that the Federation ships, every single one of them is a life-raft, By that I mean if every single Federation ship by the time of Picard is Combo everything and with the ability to travel for extended periods of time(Five years) and be fully funcitonal?

What if, Just what if thats the IDEA, What if these are not "Ships" as seen by Star-Fleet but Mobile Citys, now stick with me here.

Sure Earth has Colonies out there but put them aside for a moment

What-If the design of Federation Starships(Jack of All Trades, Large Living Quaters Replicators-ect) is delebratly designed not just by form over function engineers but rather so that every single Federation Ship out there can be, if the possiblity arises, a whole new Federation ready to go if Earth where suddenly destroyed


Now think about that fokes, SF ships can give most races ships a run for thier money, tradtionaly they are much faster than comprative ships, What if, just what if, thats the idea?

They are Fast, Armed Citys, Or to put it another way the Federation has designed it so that all of its Ships are Colony ships


Think about it...

[Patrick Degan]

By that I mean that the Federation ships, every single one of them is a life-raft, By that I mean if every single Federation ship by the time of Picard is Combo everything and with the ability to travel for extended periods of time(Five years) and be fully funcitonal?

What if, Just what if thats the IDEA, What if these are not "Ships" as seen by Star-Fleet but Mobile Citys, now stick with me here.

Sure Earth has Colonies out there but put them aside for a moment

What-If the design of Federation Starships(Jack of All Trades, Large Living Quaters Replicators-ect) is delebratly designed not just by form over function engineers but rather so that every single Federation Ship out there can be, if the possiblity arises, a whole new Federation ready to go if Earth where suddenly destroyed


Now think about that fokes, SF ships can give most races ships a run for thier money, tradtionaly they are much faster than comprative ships, What if, just what if, thats the idea?

They are Fast, Armed Cities, Or to put it another way the Federation has designed it so that all of its Ships are Colony ships


Think about it...

The problem with this theory is that individual starships aren't equipped to handle large, well-armed multiple threats sufficently to make this concept a viable one. Their technology malfunctions so often that the ships themselves are accidents waiting to happen. Each ship which is lost is also the loss of the "colony" and thus does not constitute a successful species-survival strategy.

Warships are intended as forward ready-response defence. If your intention is to set your citizenry out on mobile colonies, you'd build worldships —large, heavily armed structures— and set them moving about the galaxy and forget about territorial imperatives such as the Federation's. And you'd still need fleets to act as forward defence for the worldships. The idea of the colony/warship is essentially a beast which is neither fish nor fowl. It can't protect itself against a serious threat or even an accident sufficently to ensure the safety of the civilian contingent, and the very presence of the civilians on board reduces the combat effectiveness of the warship and endangers not only its civilian population but also the Federation homeworlds.

[Mr Bean]

I never said they where intellgent, However it seems to be the only reason(Extreme Parionia) that one would send the familes with the soilders


Can you think of another reason sans Moral that One would send basicly Breeders along with your Armed Forces?

[Typhonis 1]

(In response to Mr.Beans Question))Stress Releif since the frelling holodecks are death traps

[omegaLancer]

Of course the federation is covering all angles, if the Federation ever meet a foe that they could not handle, they have a ready made Ark.. Perpare to restart the federation on some distant safe planet...

[Hotfoot]

Of course the federation is covering all angles, if the Federation ever meet a foe that they could not handle, they have a ready made Ark.. Perpare to restart the federation on some distant safe planet...

Except how to get to said distant safe planet. Whoops.

[SPOOFE]

Most Federation ships - at least at the beginning of TNG - shouldn't be looked at as military ships (even though they were foolishly used in that regard by the Federation). They were more analogous to the vessels in the 1600s that carried immigrants to the "New World"... ships that were capable of defense, and were "exploring", but really sucked ass compared to a dedicated warship.

If the GCS actually ditched the saucer section more often - as it was designed to - and didn't have that huge design flaw in which its fusion drives provided a significant amount of power, I could see the practicality of the system... have the saucer section designed like a floating hotel, and the battle section designed for, well, battle.

Unfortunately, the Feds are idiots. What can I say?

[Guest]

Acording to the trolls i know crew were allowed to bring their families because they worked better when no seperated from their loved ones and it's a good idea if ur not gonna walk hwad on into a battle. The main reason for saucer seperation is so that the crew can be evacuated to the saucer when in battle, in doing this the Battle section becomes more deadly because the profile is reduced, and the saucer is reported to cover an extra 4 phaser strips.

[Yossarian]

"also to stop possible defections .The guy leaves the Federation withoiut permission and his familky pays specially if they are on a ship"

Wouldn't it be better if they were sepperated from their families, that way
there is no chance of them of taking them with them

[Slartibartfast]

Can someone please tell me why they put famalies on fed ships?

From "Encounter at Farpoint":
Picard: I'm not a family man, Riker, and yet starfleet has given me a ship with children on board.
Riker: Yes sir, and famalies...

Just why the f*ck do they put famalies and children on a ship that will be going into dangerous situations?????

Overpopulation?

[Failed Glory]

How long are the missions? In on eepisode, Riker is given the option of becoming Captain of a exploration vessel that has a really long mission (6 months to 2 years in deep space, anyone?).

Current naval crews just don't go that long without their families. This could be a portion of the justification.

And I also agree that the Federation's policy on peace is the other part of the push for civilians onboard. Politically, it would be very difficult to justify that SF is peaceful when every vessel is loaded with firepower, marines, and no civilian activity.

As for always going into battle with kids and families aboard, I just don't agree with that assessment. During the Klingon civil war, Picard's fleet would have had time to drop off civilians before heading into the neutral zone. I honestly didn't see too many civilians aboard SF ships during the Dominion war, as well.

And danger seems to lie everywhere in the Federation; transporter accidents, plagues, holodecks, reactor explosions, Romulans, Borg. I don't think it would matter whether you were onboard a vessel or on a colony, the danger to life exists all the same.

[Evil Jerk]

How long are the missions? In on eepisode, Riker is given the option of becoming Captain of a exploration vessel that has a really long mission (6 months to 2 years in deep space, anyone?).

Current naval crews just don't go that long without their families. This could be a portion of the justification.

In real life, exploration missions have lasted several years.
If the crews don't want to be without their families, they shouldn't sign up for a deep space mission. Of course, this does fit right in with how soft the TNG era peoples became.

And I also agree that the Federation's policy on peace is the other part of the push for civilians onboard. Politically, it would be very difficult to justify that SF is peaceful when every vessel is loaded with firepower, marines, and no civilian activity.

Then they're pretty stupid, placing civilians on military/exploration ships is not a sign of a peaceful culture, it's a sign of a stupid one.

As for always going into battle with kids and families aboard, I just don't agree with that assessment. During the Klingon civil war, Picard's fleet would have had time to drop off civilians before heading into the neutral zone. I honestly didn't see too many civilians aboard SF ships during the Dominion war, as well.

I didn't notice civilians being put off the ship in that episode, and every other time Picard has gone into a dangerous situation, chasing the Borg, crossing the Neutral Zone, etc. he never put civvies off the ship or separated the saucer.

And danger seems to lie everywhere in the Federation; transporter accidents, plagues, holodecks, reactor explosions, Romulans, Borg. I don't think it would matter whether you were onboard a vessel or on a colony, the danger to life exists all the same.

So a city on, say, Earth is just as dangerous as a GCS charging into the Neutral Zone?

[Failed Glory]

Wow. Calling me stupid. Real good debate skills there, guy. Chill out.

Notice I said colony, not Earth. Obviously Earth is fairly safe. But these colonies seem to have endless problems, even with severe weather storms.

So you are only supposed to send hardcores on deepspace missions? Why would the best of SF go on 2 year deep space missions? So they can be ignored by SF for promotions for 2 years or more and have to be away from their families as well? If I was good enough to have any spot in SF and wanted a promotion, I wouldn't put myself a thousand parsecs from the Federation.

Picard didn't have time chasing the Borg to unload 500 (pure guess here, ok) people. The episode doesn't explicitly say whether he does or does not unload anyone. What would that have to do with the show. It just says it is possible at times to reallocate the citizens.

Oh, but Earth was a target there. And in another movie, if I recall. And maybe those changlings got there, too. So maybe Earth isn't as safe as you assume...

[Evil Jerk]

Wow. Calling me stupid. Real good debate skills there, guy. Chill out.

Please point to where I called YOU stupid. Are you the in charge of the Federation now?

Notice I said colony, not Earth. Obviously Earth is fairly safe. But these colonies seem to have endless problems, even with severe weather storms.

Obviously some frontier colonies would have danger, the difference being that those civilians are there for a real purpose, to establish a settlement and let it grow.
On a starship, they're nothing but CARGO, putting themselves and the crew in unecisarry danger.

So you are only supposed to send hardcores on deepspace missions? Why would the best of SF go on 2 year deep space missions? So they can be ignored by SF for promotions for 2 years or more and have to be away from their families as well? If I was good enough to have any spot in SF and wanted a promotion, I wouldn't put myself a thousand parsecs from the Federation.

If Starfleet doesn't have any dedicated pioneers willing to sacrifice short term comfort to achieve their goals, then they have no buisness exploring anything. Furthermore vessels like the Enterprise were full of civilians, and never strayed that far from home.

Picard didn't have time chasing the Borg to unload 500 (pure guess here, ok) people.

He didn't have time to seperate the saucer?

The episode doesn't explicitly say whether he does or does not unload anyone. What would that have to do with the show. It just says it is possible at times to reallocate the citizens.

What did it have to do with the show in "The Jem'Hadar"?
Yet there they said it.

Oh, but Earth was a target there. And in another movie, if I recall. And maybe those changlings got there, too. So maybe Earth isn't as safe as you assume...

Safer than a GCS, that's for damn sure.
And if they actually protected it well, it'd be very safe indeed.

[jegs2]

Can someone please tell me why they put famalies on fed ships?

From "Encounter at Farpoint":
Picard: I'm not a family man, Riker, and yet starfleet has given me a ship with children on board.
Riker: Yes sir, and famalies...

Just why the f*ck do they put famalies and children on a ship that will be going into dangerous situations?????

Hmmmmmmmm, perhaps because the show's writers haven't served a day of military service and wished to insert their liberal ideals into how they envisioned a military service should be run...

[Failed Glory]

And I also agree that the Federation's policy on peace is the other part of the push for civilians onboard. Politically, it would be very difficult to justify that SF is peaceful when every vessel is loaded with firepower, marines, and no civilian activity.

Then they're pretty stupid, placing civilians on military/exploration ships is not a sign of a peaceful culture, it's a sign of a stupid one.

Inference of stupidity. I agree with what you call a stupid notion, therefore I am stupid.

So the whole of the Federation is in your hands, and you want to give up the saucer section, which is full of useful little items in battle, like say, I don't know, phasers?

Try and wrap your mind around the fact that the Federation has shifted it's focus from military defense to peaceful co-existence. Get out of TOS, SW, and US military doctrine for a minute and maybe civilians aboard a ship make sense for cultural and support reasons. See the British in India. They brought families and along with them cultural and political structural influence as a course instead of just military rule.

[Evil Jerk]

And I also agree that the Federation's policy on peace is the other part of the push for civilians onboard. Politically, it would be very difficult to justify that SF is peaceful when every vessel is loaded with firepower, marines, and no civilian activity.

Then they're pretty stupid, placing civilians on military/exploration ships is not a sign of a peaceful culture, it's a sign of a stupid one.

Inference of stupidity. I agree with what you call a stupid notion, therefore I am stupid.

So? I think it's stupid. Whether you personally agree with it or not is irrelevant.

So the whole of the Federation is in your hands, and you want to give up the saucer section, which is full of useful little items in battle, like say, I don't know, phasers?

The battle section also has phasers at the seperation point though, they're shorter strips, but the length has nothing to do with their power.

Try and wrap your mind around the fact that the Federation has shifted it's focus from military defense to peaceful co-existence. Get out of TOS, SW, and US military doctrine for a minute and maybe civilians aboard a ship make sense for cultural and support reasons.

On ships that go on hazardous exploratory missions, which are expected to perform a military role anyhow.

See the British in India. They brought families and along with them cultural and political structural influence as a course instead of just military rule.

But did they put them on their military and exploratory ships?

[SPOOFE]

So the whole of the Federation is in your hands, and you want to give up the saucer section, which is full of useful little items in battle, like say, I don't know, phasers?

The saucer section is designed to come off in times of crises. That means that the only power that it can generate itself is for its impulse engines. Which means that the battle section is far more powerful, and as far as I can tell, the whole PURPOSE of saucer separation was to lose the "dead weight" that the saucer represented.

If the saucer represented a significant amount of firepower to the GCS, then it's an idiotic design to have the saucer section separable in the first place... a waste of starship resources and design.

[Isolder74]

on this note can anyone tell me why the Navy doesn't let the crews of CVN's and Nuclear submarines alow the crew to take thier wives and families on the unreasonable 6-month tour of duty?

[Mr Bean]

on this note can anyone tell me why the Navy doesn't let the crews of CVN's and Nuclear submarines alow the crew to take thier wives and families on the unreasonable 6-month tour of duty?

Because there is no Physical Room

[Isolder74]

on this note can anyone tell me why the Navy doesn't let the crews of CVN's and Nuclear submarines alow the crew to take thier wives and families on the unreasonable 6-month tour of duty?

Because there is no Physical Room

and they do this why? According to Star Trek Writers it seems that without their families the navy can't fight. real life is proof that this is a moronic idea

[Patrick Degan]

Try and wrap your mind around the fact that the Federation has shifted it's focus from military defense to peaceful co-existence. Get out of TOS, SW, and US military doctrine for a minute and maybe civilians aboard a ship make sense for cultural and support reasons.

Sorry, but even with a policy of peaceful coexistence with other races, the hazards entailed in deep range exploration alone are reason not to include deadweight aboard a starship. And even in the TNG-era of peaceful coexistence, the threat of war remained with the Romulans, the Cardassians, the Borg, the Tzenkethi, and ultimately the Dominion and the Breen. Defence imperatives remain in force even if your foreign policy is not aggressively expansionist by nature, and they certainly outweigh cultural practises of the civilian world. Anything which impairs the combat efficency of a warship is a stupid idea.

See the British in India. They brought families and along with them cultural and political structural influence as a course instead of just military rule.

Invalid analogy. A long-term colonial occupation is not the same situation at all as the duty conditions of ships of the line. Vessels of the Royal Navy did not have crew's families along for the ride while the ships were on active duty.

[Ghost Rider]

I say it's an extension of Roddenberry's denial that Starfleet was militaristic.

Honestly think about the inanity, include families now people supposedly can't say well he's like a captain in the Navy, instead he's a captain of an exploration vessel.

Honestly is the only possible logic I can think of...and even then far too many people died in their *exploratory* missions to even begin account for anyone's safety...but eh...who knows.

As for the ST reason...because Starfleet has just become that inept that they believe space to be safe enough for anyone.(even though they still have armed conflicts with natives...then again they did surrender thousands of citizens to the Cardassians...so maybe it's actually a plot to regulate the population)

[Darth Wong]

Gentlemen, I have the answer. In the Trek timeline, the Eugenics wars were fought in the late 20th century.

Somehow, perhaps through superior numbers, the stupid people must have won.

[Stormbringer]

Gentlemen, I have the answer. In the Trek timeline, the Eugenics wars were fought in the late 20th century.

Somehow, perhaps through superior numbers, the stupid people must have won.

That would explain a lot. Frightening but it fits.

I say we kill B&B as they are obviously the leaders.